3338-3339. QUIK PARK WEST 57 LLC PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-Respondents/res, v. BRIDGEWATER OPERATING CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-Appellant/ap — Feuerstein Kulick LLP, New York (David Feuerstein of counsel), for appellants-res — Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Norman Flitt of counsel), for res-res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered June 5, 2015, which, inter alia, determined that there was no agency relationship between the parties, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 21, 2016, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ motion for a declaratory judgment that defendant failed to give the requisite contractual notice of default and opportunity to cure, dismissed defendant’s counterclaim for an accounting, in part, its counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, and its request for punitive damages, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their unpleaded breach of contract claim and their cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and denied their requests for a judgment in their favor for $716,666.66 in management fees and a reference to a special referee for a determination of their damages relating to their share of “Net Revenue” under the contract and of their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
An agency relationship results from a manifestation of consent by one entity to another that the agent shall act on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control (see Gulf Ins. Co. v. Transatlantic Reins. Co., 69 AD3d 71, 96-97 [1st Dept 2009]). As a general rule, control of the method and means by which work is to be performed is a critical factor in determining whether one is an independent contractor or an employee (see Melbourne v. New York Life Ins. Co., 271 AD2d 296, 297 [1st Dept 2000]).
